It seems like it is gonna back fire if Crowder creates his in.
Steven Crowder takes a stand against Conservative networks
- Thread starter Zachowon
- Start date
Exactly.
"See he just wanted more"
But...he brought up the big tech stuff.
"ITS ABOUT MONEY!!!!"
The response video went through the whole term sheet that was initially offered and IIRC they uploaded it as well.
The fact people are focusing on the $50-75 million plus in compensation is probably because the point of employment is to get paid. If I was Crowder stating I was offered $50-75 million right off the bat then decrying it as smothering young upcoming content creators would probably be a less effective tactic then what he went with which is not mentioning the tens of million sin compensation, or the four day work weeks with four weeks of vacation, or that DW would take on all marketing and production and financing costs of specials and docs beyond his show itself.
But.
That money seems nice.
Oh you just got demonitized. There goes 25 percent.
Oh you got a strike because mass flags? There goes another 25 percent.
Oh boy you just got banned off FB and YT.
Welp, there goes up to 75 percent of your pay.
My hour Long show is 30 minutes content 30 minutes ads. How fun
Blasterbot
Well-known member
you can tell what they care about by their arguments. I have some sympathy for the business perspective with the DW. they need to be profitable so they can grow. that said they are definitely more sanitized and safe in terms of content so they can maintain that profit. I will even give them the benefit of the doubt that they want that so they can reinvest and grow into a legit movie studio and streaming service.
that said the deal they offered was pretty garbage. Crowder wanted assistance with distribution and a budget to keep his team employed should he get nuked off the platforms. look at his rumble numbers when he got kicked off youtube. people will follow him. people buy what he promotes because they know they can trust him.
it is sad they couldn't sit down and make something work.
See, this still makes it sound like it's about the money, which the DW is banking on, when Crowder specifically said the money is not the issue, the terms relationship to Youtube and social platform terms of service being changed to dumb shit, or leftist boycotts, impacting/limiting what topics Crowder can even mention in his content and takes ownership over far more than is reasonable given Crowder already has much of his own set-up and backing.
Which I guess is why it seems more likely Corwder making his own is what will happen, and I trust Crowder a shitload more than Shapiro's company now.
Yes Crowder is a YouTuber. His primary platform is YouTube. If he is banned off of YouTube permanently the DW under the guidelines of the non-binding term sheet that Crowder requested in lieu of negotiation first means instead of $50 million, he might only be paid $40 million for making videos that can now only be seen and monetized on Rumble.
Why is DW being so greedy? They're in bed with Big Tech!
Seras
Well-known member
Wow what a disingenuous argument. That isn't in any way the truth of it.
Crowder is already adblocked from Youtube. So there is no money coming in there ALREADY. DW is buying subscribers to Mugclub, future private ad sales, merch, Subscribers to their DW+ thing depending on how they integrate mugclub with that.
That is already going to be massive chunks of money. If they manage to get Crowder monetized on Youtube, which is possible, that would be more money coming in, but people are already paying to watch crowder. We don't have exact numbers, but when almost every video he produces is half a million viewers, and his big ones are multiple millions, it's ridiculous to offer him a deal where he can go from probably making what he already brings in. To pennies, when he still has to pay for the production of the show.
That deal focuses solely on an opposing group providing revenue. (Youtube/Apple/ect) That is already well known for demonetizing conservative people. Crowder especially, as the sole focus and money making, but that just isn't the truth. It's no where near the truth. It would be nice if he was monetized on youtube ect, but most of his money comes from his mugclub. Not even counting the ads he does in videos, which is usually only one ad a video, when DW wants 5+.
As I said, I think Crowder was right here. This deal isn't just an insult to him, it's predatory, and puts all of the people under it under the yoke of youtube monetization which means they have to toe the line, or lose massive chunks of their income. I watched both Crowders original video. The rebuttal, and Rekieta's response video at this point, and DW didn't impress me here.
He would lose 50 percent of his money if he was both demonitized and banned. Or around that much.
And he then has to be careful not to get banned of FB.
Which he has been before.
He also loses any and all money he makes off merch. So why promote it?
He loses his personality. He can't be the comedian who doesn't care about being PC.
Hell, he would probably be at 10 mil if not lower for this kinda deal last year. When he had his surgery.
He would be down a lot of money.
And guess what. The money isn't for him to spend and go ham.
It is to make sure he pays his staff well. Living wage even. The building. The skits.
Basically it isn't about the money
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
yeah no offense Kahn but I think this is a bad take, the man is adblocked on youtube already, yet he's still a multimillionaire where does that money come from? Merch all of which would go to dailywire plus Crowder made his mark by being Un sanitized if dailywire did require him to tow the line on certain things (Which wouldn't surprise me) then not only does he lose his primary means of making money, he also loses a good chunk of his audience.
There is also the fact that his primary reason for doing all of this in the first place was to point out the spiraling behavior of the left. Somthing he can't exackly do if he's being censored.
If steven only cared about the money, I'm 99% sure he'd have stayed in Hollywood or at least Fox.
So having watched both videos, a lot of it showed that Crowder either didn't know what he was talking about or was causing drama (I'd say the former). Notably, the way Crowder phrased what would happen if he missed work because of injury seemed like a deliberate lie by omission or huge stupidity.
The Youtube demonetization thing is concerning, but reads to me more as an obvious thing left in to cross out as a negotiation tactic, rather than a simp for big tech.
The Youtube demonetization thing is concerning, but reads to me more as an obvious thing left in to cross out as a negotiation tactic, rather than a simp for big tech.
I actually agree. Wasting words defending Daily Wire from Steven Crowder made me rethink things, like the last time either Daily Wire or Crowder popped up in my radar for anything of relevance.
The second strike was actually having to look up who Jeremy Boreing actually was.
But your statement helped distill just how little influence either organization has on me so I shouldn't actually give af either way and just watch in hilarious bemusement as Alternative New Media Political Commentary Rips into each other for nebulous reasons.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
That's fair.
The ad and pay cuts for losing ads and for not staying in line seems to be more then just a thing to be negotiated.
How often has someone from the DW ever been demonitized recently? Like past two years since being with them.
What about saying controversial things even if the truth?
Look, I was just looking at the verifiable things, and Crowder said some verifiably wrong things/omitted seriously relevant context things.
For example, the paycuts for missing a show? Crowder asked in his opening video "but what if I get injured?" and implied that he would loose 100k/missed episode. But as the DW showed with the contract, a) He could produce more shows per week after he got back and make up some or go into his vacation time, and b) It also wouldn't be a full penalty to the fee, but instead pro rated with the difference in pay done by a percentage of deliverables vs. a penalty for each missed day.
Crowder not informing people of this makes me dubious of the rest of what he said, and lowered my trust in him. Not that I like either, tbc (they're all statists IMO), but Crowder has always hit me as very trustworthy until now.
Have you watched Raketas take on it yet?
Does it say that in the contract? Because him saying itbdoes and if it actually does is diffrent.
We also have to look at it this way.
Steven is looking at this from a standpoint of, "I had surgery that put me out of commission for months, and then had emergency one that put me out for even longer".
He gets injured and is out for days to weeks? Welp sure he can make it up...but that helps lead to burn out. "You HAVE to make this many and only get this many weeks off."
Steven was talling about the burnout of that. He barely ever made pre recorded shows, because you can't expect someone to have to make up what would equal weeks of work to make up for in order to get thier pay.
Does your work hold your pay back until you make up the stuff you missed during tines when you were sick?
It does say that in the contract. Dude showed the contract on screen (timestamp 25:21):
It simply doesn't pay you once you've taken all your paid sick & vacation days (which aren't many for me). Like most jobs not for the government. There's disability insurance, but Crowder would get that separate from this deal, and probably independently. The company doesn't pay you though.
What was described in the contract is basically the same: A non-punitive cessation of paying someone who cannot do work. By non-punitive, I don't mean that Crowder doesn't lose money, I just mean he doesn't get docked additional money for not producing stuff (it's pro-rata, not extra).